Laserfiche WebLink
resource managers may' require that flows be sent do«,°n the Colorado River to <br />keep an adequate water supply bank in Lake Po~~°ell to handle future di-~' years. <br />These required f1o~3•s could cause water rights ~yith priority- dates after 1922 but <br />before ?007 to be curtailed. <br />iii. Several states are invoh-ed in Million's project. and it is unclear how state la~~=s <br />and the 1948 Upper Colorado River Compact will be applied to sort out the <br />priorities. Flaming Uorge Resen~oir lies in both Utah and W~-~oming. and the <br />water ~yill be consumed in Colorado. In past decisions, water has been charged <br />against the state ~ehere it is consumed. ~yhich means that Colorado would be <br />charged ~yith water diverted to the Front Range in Million's project. <br />iv. The 1948 Compact requites that Upper Basin states that have used more than their <br />share must first curtail appropriations in the event of a Compact Call. Howes-°er. <br />once this curtailment has occurred. the 1948 Compact does not further address <br />ho~y each state handles a compact curtailment within that state. Eric fears that <br />Colorado's West Slope will bear the blunt of a Compact Call since water caimot <br />be phy~sicall~- dig-•erted from Millions project to the West Slope. <br />b. Iri response. Million's attorneys White and Jaiilcowski prepared a memo dated July 1 Z 2007, <br />in ~~-•hich they argue that Million's project will relieve pressure on additional diversions from <br />the West Slope to the East Slope. <br />i. The memo agrees that water diverted by Million's project would be deemed to be <br />consumed in Colorado. However, it points out that the Upper Basin States have <br />over-delivered water to the Lower Basin for every 10-rear period since 1922. <br />The memo claims that Million's project will retain water iii Colorado that is <br />othenyise being lost to Lower Basin States. <br />ii. The memo also asserts that Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) diversions are <br />subordinate to Western Slope needs (see paragraph ~(i) of Senate Document 80), <br />and that Dillon Reservoir diversions are subordinate to the CBT, so that the West <br />Slope is therefore protected i11 the event of a Compact Call. <br />iii. Finally, the memo notes that SWSI Phase One pointed out the Front Range's <br />gro~ying water needs. and that the Front Range is relying on non-renewable <br />ground~yater supplies to meet these needs. The memo concludes that the issues <br />raised bye Eric Kuhn can be addressed in an environmental impact statement <br />required b~~ NEPA for the project. and that the public has an opportunity for input <br />in this process. <br />14. Update on pre~-ious Water for the 21st Centur~~ Grant a~i~ards. <br />a. Grand County NCNA: Urand County. the grant recipient, turned down the $30.000 grant <br />due to restrictions unposed by- the CWCB. In particular, the CWCB demanded that Grand <br />County' relinquish the right to use the results of the needs analysis in any evidentiary hearing <br />or court case. The CWCB imposed the restrictions over fear that the needs analysis could Deietea: c_n~~~,~~~e~m ~~~a <br />interfere ~yith the prior appropriation system. HF3 03-1177 states that the prior appropriation ,' serr~~k ~~~~i~~~ izo~i <br />~ Settriq, Temiuaiti~Internet <br />S_ySt2m 1S SaC10Sallct: See CRS Seetion ~~-~~-j02~1~. ~ File,t~Lh6D`Tlmutes7ul_v"'00' <br />~ CBRT_doc <br />' Deleted: ~ I> X00 <br />~, <br />LInterbnsinCom~netConututtae`$asinRonndtablesColorado',A-linntee_007Alinntas7nl~ _007CBRT.do~ ~ - <br />i ~ ' ~ `~---------------4~~ lU/_ <br />